God
-
Okay, so maybe intellect was a bad choice of word. Maybe "intellectual being" would have been more appropriate. If intellect were really the faculty in question wouldn't it embrace that which is true and verifiable, and abandon that which is untrue and non-verifiable? If you ask a religion man if he believes his faith is based on the truth, what will he answer? Where would "like" enter the picture? Once upon a time, when man knew no better, he was asked by hid child "Daddy, why did Grandaddy die?". The man thought long and hard about this question, then as he had no idea, answered that the child's grandfather had gone to a place so wonderful that it couldn't be described; so brilliant that it couldn't be imagined. So convienient that the child could find no more questions to ask. In other words, the belief in a superhuman divine being will answer any question that you want. But it seems foolhardy and spurious to use a non-physical, spiritual faculty like intellect as the rationale for the human invention of spiritual ideas like God. Whoa - I never said this was where religion came from, only why religion is so easy for an intellectual being to adopt and embrace. I believe religion as we know it today was based on many things, primarily the need to answer basic questions such as why did grandaddy die, and why are we starving (thus heaven was formed); and also from rulers to put the fear of god into people and get them to obey their masters and not revolt ("and then there was hell"). Taking the Bible as an example, it was written over hundreds of years, no doubt based on countless different stories told through hundreds of generations. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk All things are possible except skiing through a revolving door. — Murphy's Laws of Technology
David... The thing I find so fascinating is the insistence that death and separation would be in any way frightening, unnatural or in need of an explanation if we lived in a world limited to the physical. If everything eventually died, and if death was as natural as eating and breathing... why would it raise any questions or fears at all. Why would an explanation be necessary? Who would ever think to ask the question? To a fish... breathing in water is no mystery. It is completely and totally "natural." It is a very basic question... why would anyone fear death, or require mysterious explanations for life and its meaning or ultimate reality if all any human being had ever known was a life that ended in death. If the physical is the only reality that there ever was... why would we have such a panic and unease at something that is such an integral part of that natural physical milieu? To me... the fear of death and separation... and the need for understanding ultimate realities is an indication that in fact "death" is very unnatural to us, not what we were created for, and very much against the way we were "spiritually" wired. For a spiritual creature created in God's image and destined to live forever... death is a wholly unnatural event that breeds fear and unease... and is all wrong... and therfore is demanding of explanations and rationals. If our exstince was completely and totally limited to the physical I doubt we would give death a second thought. Not that we wouldn't instinctually try and avoid death (although that is another interesting topic)... but it wouldn't be in any way "surprising" or "fearful" or in need of any fancy explanations of God to make more palpable. We would live and die and not give either the slightest consideration. JM
-
So basically he created some friends so he wouldn't be lonely, that would look after him and care for him. I couldn't have put it better myself, only I would make one small change (switch "god" with "man"). ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
I don't remember saying anything about lonely, but I guess three messages is about the limit in terms of refraining from juvenile ridicule.
-
Tim, You're not a Thomist? I thought it was "esse principi." But God himself told us His name to Moses in Exodus. I believe He called himself.... "I AM who AM." That about sums it up! JM
No - More's supreme being still implies a dichotomy between the creator and her creation. Check this link for more on what I was getting at: http://frank.mtsu.edu/~rbombard/RB/Spinoza/arg.html
-
I was initially going to post this in the Christian Thread but i guess it deserves a thread of it's own. Just wanted to know what ur definition of God is? and Do you think God created You or did You create God?
Warning: Do not execute #include "stdio.h" int main(void) { printf("12\t\b\b"); printf("12\t\b\b"); return 0; } Sonork ID 100.9997 sijinjoseph
It's a funny thing about God. He gives us enough evidence of His existance to believe in Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, if people would search for it with an open mind. While at the same time He left enough mystery, doubt, and evidence against Himself so that an Atheist could also be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist. You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. The theology behind this apparent contradiction is simple. If God left enough proof of himself so that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he exists, then there would no longer be a choice involved in our faith in and obedience to him. We would simply have to, or be considered insane. God's ultimate motivation is for His people to love Him freely and truly. If we had no choice our love would not be as valueable to Him. Sort of like programming an artifical girl friend for yourself. She only does what she's programmed to do. She has no free will. So big deal. She HAS to love you. God is looking for people who freely, and truly love Him, inspite of all scientific arguments. Now no scientific or intellectual argument will ever convince a hard-core atheist that there is a God. They simply have chosen not to believe. I gave up arguing with such people long ago. It's pointless. They accuse "religious" people of blindly following fairy tales without examining the evidence, but at the same time they cling tenaciously to the age-old arguments against God (that have more holes in them than the Titanic) in the very same way. "Who created God then?"(how could the being who created time have a chronological begining?) or "If God is all-powerful and all-good why is there evil in the world?"(People have free choice, remember?) As far as man creating God to give themselves a purpose in life, or excuse to commit evil in the name of religion or whatever. I might believe this if we still lived in the days of the ancient Roman and Greek gods. They were just like us. They were created in our image, by small-minded men. They were lustful, greedy, jealous, full of pride. The real God, however, if you get to know him, is far more complicated, far higher above anything men could think up, and way too backward from us! People who use this argument don't really know God enough to support this idea. In fact the reason most athiests are atheists is because they don't know who God really is. One theologian said, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in and I probably wouldn't believe in him either."
-
It's a funny thing about God. He gives us enough evidence of His existance to believe in Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, if people would search for it with an open mind. While at the same time He left enough mystery, doubt, and evidence against Himself so that an Atheist could also be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist. You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. The theology behind this apparent contradiction is simple. If God left enough proof of himself so that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he exists, then there would no longer be a choice involved in our faith in and obedience to him. We would simply have to, or be considered insane. God's ultimate motivation is for His people to love Him freely and truly. If we had no choice our love would not be as valueable to Him. Sort of like programming an artifical girl friend for yourself. She only does what she's programmed to do. She has no free will. So big deal. She HAS to love you. God is looking for people who freely, and truly love Him, inspite of all scientific arguments. Now no scientific or intellectual argument will ever convince a hard-core atheist that there is a God. They simply have chosen not to believe. I gave up arguing with such people long ago. It's pointless. They accuse "religious" people of blindly following fairy tales without examining the evidence, but at the same time they cling tenaciously to the age-old arguments against God (that have more holes in them than the Titanic) in the very same way. "Who created God then?"(how could the being who created time have a chronological begining?) or "If God is all-powerful and all-good why is there evil in the world?"(People have free choice, remember?) As far as man creating God to give themselves a purpose in life, or excuse to commit evil in the name of religion or whatever. I might believe this if we still lived in the days of the ancient Roman and Greek gods. They were just like us. They were created in our image, by small-minded men. They were lustful, greedy, jealous, full of pride. The real God, however, if you get to know him, is far more complicated, far higher above anything men could think up, and way too backward from us! People who use this argument don't really know God enough to support this idea. In fact the reason most athiests are atheists is because they don't know who God really is. One theologian said, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in and I probably wouldn't believe in him either."
Kevin Ranville wrote: You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
David... The thing I find so fascinating is the insistence that death and separation would be in any way frightening, unnatural or in need of an explanation if we lived in a world limited to the physical. If everything eventually died, and if death was as natural as eating and breathing... why would it raise any questions or fears at all. Why would an explanation be necessary? Who would ever think to ask the question? To a fish... breathing in water is no mystery. It is completely and totally "natural." It is a very basic question... why would anyone fear death, or require mysterious explanations for life and its meaning or ultimate reality if all any human being had ever known was a life that ended in death. If the physical is the only reality that there ever was... why would we have such a panic and unease at something that is such an integral part of that natural physical milieu? To me... the fear of death and separation... and the need for understanding ultimate realities is an indication that in fact "death" is very unnatural to us, not what we were created for, and very much against the way we were "spiritually" wired. For a spiritual creature created in God's image and destined to live forever... death is a wholly unnatural event that breeds fear and unease... and is all wrong... and therfore is demanding of explanations and rationals. If our exstince was completely and totally limited to the physical I doubt we would give death a second thought. Not that we wouldn't instinctually try and avoid death (although that is another interesting topic)... but it wouldn't be in any way "surprising" or "fearful" or in need of any fancy explanations of God to make more palpable. We would live and die and not give either the slightest consideration. JM
Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. Humans desiring authoritative positions created heaven, hell, god, etc. in order to keep their “flock” in line. Everything else was added to verify his existence and scare people from diversion. Religion is spiritual politics. Do you know any honest politicians?
-
Just wanted to know what ur definition of God is? God is a mythical entity, loosely based on our own consciousness, that we can use to give security, control, comfort and meaning to our lives. That is my description, but according to The Little Oxford Dictionary, god is a superhuman being worshipped as possessing divine power. True story: as I was looking that up, I mistakenly read the definition of “goby” as that of “god”: A small fish with ventral [abdominal] fins joined into a disk or sucker Luckily though I thought “this doesn’t sound right” before blindly copying it out. ;) Do you think God created You or did You create God? I think my definition above will answer this from me, but this question really has no meaning. Surrounding my reply you will have people stating both, some as beliefs, some as facts, but each person will justify their own interpretations, so not really giving you an answer you can use. God you’ve gotta love religion. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
David Wulff wrote: God is a mythical entity, loosely based on our own consciousness, that we can use to give security, control, comfort and meaning to our lives. If I were to say that your wife was a mythical entity ( assuming you're married ), based on the fact I have no evidence of her existance, would that make her disappear ? What if she offered to fly to australia and slap me in the face to *prove* she exists and I refused the offer but continued to claim she doesn't exist ? David Wulff wrote: Do you think God created You or did You create God? A lot of people have and do create 'gods' for themselves, sadly most call him Jesus and muddy the waters with regard to Christianity. That does nothing to alter the fact of God's existance. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
Kevin Ranville wrote: You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. You *can* prove that He exists, but because of the issues related to free will, the proof is to the individual. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
I was in a hurry and I skimmed it. I don't even remember what I said ( and update is too slow for me to be able to check ), but if I was at odds with your intention, then it's because I didn't take/have time to read it all, and I'm arrogant enough to post anyway. :rose: Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
Sonork ID 100.10002:MeanManOz
I live in Bob's HungOut now
-
It's a funny thing about God. He gives us enough evidence of His existance to believe in Him beyond a shadow of a doubt, if people would search for it with an open mind. While at the same time He left enough mystery, doubt, and evidence against Himself so that an Atheist could also be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that He doesn't exist. You can't prove He does exist, but you can't prove he doesn't exist either. The theology behind this apparent contradiction is simple. If God left enough proof of himself so that there was absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he exists, then there would no longer be a choice involved in our faith in and obedience to him. We would simply have to, or be considered insane. God's ultimate motivation is for His people to love Him freely and truly. If we had no choice our love would not be as valueable to Him. Sort of like programming an artifical girl friend for yourself. She only does what she's programmed to do. She has no free will. So big deal. She HAS to love you. God is looking for people who freely, and truly love Him, inspite of all scientific arguments. Now no scientific or intellectual argument will ever convince a hard-core atheist that there is a God. They simply have chosen not to believe. I gave up arguing with such people long ago. It's pointless. They accuse "religious" people of blindly following fairy tales without examining the evidence, but at the same time they cling tenaciously to the age-old arguments against God (that have more holes in them than the Titanic) in the very same way. "Who created God then?"(how could the being who created time have a chronological begining?) or "If God is all-powerful and all-good why is there evil in the world?"(People have free choice, remember?) As far as man creating God to give themselves a purpose in life, or excuse to commit evil in the name of religion or whatever. I might believe this if we still lived in the days of the ancient Roman and Greek gods. They were just like us. They were created in our image, by small-minded men. They were lustful, greedy, jealous, full of pride. The real God, however, if you get to know him, is far more complicated, far higher above anything men could think up, and way too backward from us! People who use this argument don't really know God enough to support this idea. In fact the reason most athiests are atheists is because they don't know who God really is. One theologian said, "Tell me about the God you don't believe in and I probably wouldn't believe in him either."
You will never find God in a bible.
-
You will never find God in a bible.
Well not literally. You can't open up the book and see him inside there waving at you. Obviously. But if you meant not finding the teachings He left us about Himself that can help us to learn about Him, I strongly disagree. You can find God in the bible. In fact that's the best place to start. Reading and thinking for yourself, as opposed to having beliefs fed to you by a "religious authority", or just sitting around on a hill somewhere dreaming up your own concepts of God. As the Romans and Greeks did. (What a mess they came up with.) Once again I urge you to forget about everything you think you know and "just read it", and see for yourself.
-
Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. Humans desiring authoritative positions created heaven, hell, god, etc. in order to keep their “flock” in line. Everything else was added to verify his existence and scare people from diversion. Religion is spiritual politics. Do you know any honest politicians?
Henry-- This to me seems like the weakest kind of reasoning. Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? My whole problem is with the invention aspects of this line of reasoning. I think that if we were merely "phyical creatures" evolving from a line of other merely "physical creatures" that anyone who tried to instill spiritual ideas like love, compassion, forgiveness, atonement, eternal life, etc., might as well be trying to describe an 8-dmensional world to me in a language I didn't understand. It is not just that I wouldn't believe them... I wouldn't have even the foggiest idea what they were talking about. This to me is the most interesting aspect of this discussion. We are so immersed as spiritual creatures in a spiritual world that don't have enough distance or perspective to realize it. We're like fish denying the existence of water. Without spirit the world we live in would be absolutely void of all the things we hold most dear... indeed all meaning at all. But we can't or won't see it!! JM
-
Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. Humans desiring authoritative positions created heaven, hell, god, etc. in order to keep their “flock” in line. Everything else was added to verify his existence and scare people from diversion. Religion is spiritual politics. Do you know any honest politicians?
Henry Jacobs wrote: Without the ramifications of life after death humans would do anything they want; steal, kill, rape, lie, covet, etc. That has got to be the stupidist argument I have ever heard. I do not believe anything will happen to what I call "me" after I die, short of the basic physical components that make up my mind and body being recycled as they have been billions of times before I occupied them. Therefore, by your logic, I do anything I want? I am therefore a thief, a murderer, a rapist, a lier, etc, etc. Yeah right. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
Henry-- This to me seems like the weakest kind of reasoning. Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? My whole problem is with the invention aspects of this line of reasoning. I think that if we were merely "phyical creatures" evolving from a line of other merely "physical creatures" that anyone who tried to instill spiritual ideas like love, compassion, forgiveness, atonement, eternal life, etc., might as well be trying to describe an 8-dmensional world to me in a language I didn't understand. It is not just that I wouldn't believe them... I wouldn't have even the foggiest idea what they were talking about. This to me is the most interesting aspect of this discussion. We are so immersed as spiritual creatures in a spiritual world that don't have enough distance or perspective to realize it. We're like fish denying the existence of water. Without spirit the world we live in would be absolutely void of all the things we hold most dear... indeed all meaning at all. But we can't or won't see it!! JM
John McIlroy wrote: Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? For someone who argues pro-religion, and particularly pro-god, that is a stupid comment to make when the only supporting evidence is a book written over thousands of years by hundreds of different people based on generation-told stories. Call that proof? Considering how a story changes when told amongst a room full of people all present at the same time, I wouldn’t place too much faith in it's accuracy - no matter what the topic. Then of course we have personal experiences. Those again cannot be used as proof, considering that you can't get off from a murder charge by saying "but my body was suddenly taken over by a divine force". You can't say "oh, but it's okay in this case just not in others." Then that leaves the age old "well what else could there be?" Well, guess what - I can't tell you. I don't know the inner workings of the universe and everything in it. But then again, neither do you, and neither did those creative folk thousands of years ago. John McIlroy wrote: In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? That holds no weight in this context, seeing as we know for a fact that dollar bills do not grow on trees, just as we know for a fact that we won't bounce very high when we jump from a very tall building. Four hundred years ago we believed the world was flat; three hundred years ago we believed the sun revolved around the earth; two hundred years ago we believed the earth was solid; one hundred years ago we believed we had invented everything that was ever to be invented; fifty years ago space travel was science fiction, and yet we know for a fact that the world is elliptical; we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun; we know for a fact that the earth is made of layers; we know for a fact that invention will continue for as long as there are inventors; earlier this year we sent the first tourist into space. Thousands of years ago we did not know that there wasn't a god, nor indeed that there was, but we assumed there must be for various reasons (e.g. Paley's watch theory, inexplicable experiences, etc). Today we have found other proofs to replace most of the reasoning behind a belief in a superhuman divine being. Yet still ther
-
I don't remember saying anything about lonely, but I guess three messages is about the limit in terms of refraining from juvenile ridicule.
People only result to insults when they are loosing the fight. Stop it, neither of us is remotely near. My statement about "loneliness" had nothing to do with what you said, but with the way you said it. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
John McIlroy wrote: Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? For someone who argues pro-religion, and particularly pro-god, that is a stupid comment to make when the only supporting evidence is a book written over thousands of years by hundreds of different people based on generation-told stories. Call that proof? Considering how a story changes when told amongst a room full of people all present at the same time, I wouldn’t place too much faith in it's accuracy - no matter what the topic. Then of course we have personal experiences. Those again cannot be used as proof, considering that you can't get off from a murder charge by saying "but my body was suddenly taken over by a divine force". You can't say "oh, but it's okay in this case just not in others." Then that leaves the age old "well what else could there be?" Well, guess what - I can't tell you. I don't know the inner workings of the universe and everything in it. But then again, neither do you, and neither did those creative folk thousands of years ago. John McIlroy wrote: In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? That holds no weight in this context, seeing as we know for a fact that dollar bills do not grow on trees, just as we know for a fact that we won't bounce very high when we jump from a very tall building. Four hundred years ago we believed the world was flat; three hundred years ago we believed the sun revolved around the earth; two hundred years ago we believed the earth was solid; one hundred years ago we believed we had invented everything that was ever to be invented; fifty years ago space travel was science fiction, and yet we know for a fact that the world is elliptical; we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun; we know for a fact that the earth is made of layers; we know for a fact that invention will continue for as long as there are inventors; earlier this year we sent the first tourist into space. Thousands of years ago we did not know that there wasn't a god, nor indeed that there was, but we assumed there must be for various reasons (e.g. Paley's watch theory, inexplicable experiences, etc). Today we have found other proofs to replace most of the reasoning behind a belief in a superhuman divine being. Yet still ther
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... JM
-
John McIlroy wrote: Why would anyone believe stories of heaven or hell when the person offering the story had absolutely no evidence? For someone who argues pro-religion, and particularly pro-god, that is a stupid comment to make when the only supporting evidence is a book written over thousands of years by hundreds of different people based on generation-told stories. Call that proof? Considering how a story changes when told amongst a room full of people all present at the same time, I wouldn’t place too much faith in it's accuracy - no matter what the topic. Then of course we have personal experiences. Those again cannot be used as proof, considering that you can't get off from a murder charge by saying "but my body was suddenly taken over by a divine force". You can't say "oh, but it's okay in this case just not in others." Then that leaves the age old "well what else could there be?" Well, guess what - I can't tell you. I don't know the inner workings of the universe and everything in it. But then again, neither do you, and neither did those creative folk thousands of years ago. John McIlroy wrote: In fact, why wouldn't those stories seem utterly ridiculous to the people who heard them, akin to me promising you that if you behaved I'd give you a money tree that grew dollar bills? That holds no weight in this context, seeing as we know for a fact that dollar bills do not grow on trees, just as we know for a fact that we won't bounce very high when we jump from a very tall building. Four hundred years ago we believed the world was flat; three hundred years ago we believed the sun revolved around the earth; two hundred years ago we believed the earth was solid; one hundred years ago we believed we had invented everything that was ever to be invented; fifty years ago space travel was science fiction, and yet we know for a fact that the world is elliptical; we know for a fact that the earth revolves around the sun; we know for a fact that the earth is made of layers; we know for a fact that invention will continue for as long as there are inventors; earlier this year we sent the first tourist into space. Thousands of years ago we did not know that there wasn't a god, nor indeed that there was, but we assumed there must be for various reasons (e.g. Paley's watch theory, inexplicable experiences, etc). Today we have found other proofs to replace most of the reasoning behind a belief in a superhuman divine being. Yet still ther
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate the most important things in life... like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. Weird... JM
-
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... JM
John McIlroy wrote: If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? The same could be said about pain, hunger, indeed every one of our senses could be described like that too. I meant “physical” as in “physical behaviour”. All mammals show love for their offspring during their upbringing, and all mammal parents will forgive their offspring too. If a baby mammal kills its brother, its mother will not punish it. Because something cannot be measured does not mean anything. John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long. Think about the Cuckoo (okay, I know it’s not a mammal, but the concept is the same). They lay their eggs in another birds nest, and when they hatch they are reared by the other birds as if they were their own. This is because of love and compassion, or if you’d prefer, devotion and care, which according to Oxford are one and the same in meaning. This cannot be described as purely maternal instinct, as if a woman gives birth to a pig then to her it would be her child, and she would love and have compassion for it, but the father would only love and care for it out of his own love and care for the woman (i.e. no parental instinct would be present as it is not his child). And once more: John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Which brings me back to my “if you can't explain it, it must be god”. Unfortunately, this particular example can be explained – although I have no doubt not done it justice. John McIlroy wrote: When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... That is the old justifying a justification “thing” I was talking about. If I could provide you with sch
-
David-- That was quite the treatise. I can't do it justice. I have an exam tomorrow morning and am travelling tomorrow afternoon. Otherwise I would be happy to bat this around a while longer. I'll have to just focus in a couple of point. The most important being your rejection of love and forgiveness as spiritual precepts. If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? This is the frustrating part of a conversation with a materialist. While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate the most important things in life... like love or compassion. Why is that? The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. Weird... JM
A second reply? Why not just edit your original? Anyway, as I have already answered that one, I will address your additions below: John McIlroy wrote: The memory of a computer has an understandable storage mechanism, and a file has a specific "address" and physical location, but when it comes to people, who according to materialists are nothing but a different kind of computer, then nothing is understood about the physical dimensions of thought, or acts of the will, etc. This argument again has no meaning given the context and what we are discussing. We designed computers, so of course we will understand every minute detail about them. We did not design our genes, not the universe around us, so how can we possibly hope to have the same level of understanding? John McIlroy wrote: The scientific types laugh at the naivety of religious people who embrace a greater spiritual reality... but the fact that the things most important to us... happiness, love, satisfaction, forgiveness, etc... have no apparent "physicality"... even though the physical is supposed to represent the sum total of reality... does not seem to embarass them at all. I don’t think you will find any self-respectable person who laughs at the naivety of religious people. The scientific types I presume you are referring to may laugh at the naivety of religious arguments and the naivety of their so called proof, but that is completely different. Besides which, many of these scientific types are religions people themselves, who somehow manage to justify their findings in the same way as you justified yourself in your duplicate reply. As to the rest, I can only take you back to my previous reply regarding what mankind believed 4, 3, 2 and 1 centuries ago. How can you state that we should know everything about everything? To achieve that would be to achieve the impossible. To achieve that would create god from those who held the knowledge. ________________ David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk "I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards who haven't got the guts to bite people themselves" - August Strindberg
-
John McIlroy wrote: If they are physical, what is the physical origin and attributes of love? What color is it? What are its dimensions? Is it a chemical reaction in the brain? What area of the brain is it local to? Is it energy? Potential or kinetic? Where is it stored? How do we measure it? The same could be said about pain, hunger, indeed every one of our senses could be described like that too. I meant “physical” as in “physical behaviour”. All mammals show love for their offspring during their upbringing, and all mammal parents will forgive their offspring too. If a baby mammal kills its brother, its mother will not punish it. Because something cannot be measured does not mean anything. John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long. Think about the Cuckoo (okay, I know it’s not a mammal, but the concept is the same). They lay their eggs in another birds nest, and when they hatch they are reared by the other birds as if they were their own. This is because of love and compassion, or if you’d prefer, devotion and care, which according to Oxford are one and the same in meaning. This cannot be described as purely maternal instinct, as if a woman gives birth to a pig then to her it would be her child, and she would love and have compassion for it, but the father would only love and care for it out of his own love and care for the woman (i.e. no parental instinct would be present as it is not his child). And once more: John McIlroy wrote: While they can insist that the physical forms the basis of all reality, they can't physically locate things like love or compassion. Why is that? Which brings me back to my “if you can't explain it, it must be god”. Unfortunately, this particular example can be explained – although I have no doubt not done it justice. John McIlroy wrote: When materialists come up with the size, shape, and molecular weight of forgiveness... then maybe I'll start doubting my religion. But until then... That is the old justifying a justification “thing” I was talking about. If I could provide you with sch
David-- I think you might be taking this mammal thing too far. A lioness will often kill one of her cubs and then eat it, and none of the lions give it a second thought. heck they join in. Not the ype of behaviour you would see in human mammals. However, you said: "Love and compassion (especially love and compassion) are very obviously physical things. Most mammals are pre-programmed with love and compassion, as without it they’re species is very unlikely to stay around for very long." Okay then David, if they are physical give the physical attributes, how it stored, how it distributed, what form it takes, what its dimensions are. All you have said is that the effects of love are physically observable. I don't want to see the effects... I want to see love itself... in its raw physical form. Even if I am not displaying any behaviour of love toward my daughter... the love is still there. Well where is it stored? What is the mechanism? How is it phyically deployed? Forgetting for a second that materialists still can't determine whether light is a particle or a wave... scientists generally use the laws of physics to describe and understand physical systems. If a person is nothing more than a physical system, then why can't the physical system for voluntary movement, for example, be explained in a purely physical way? What is the mechanism for storing memories? How can we define consciousness? What color is love? You make it sound as if it is nitpicking to demand a 100% physical explanation for love. It isn't. If we are a merely a physical system... then everything ought to be explainable through a merely physical cause and effect relationship. I'm not looking for the genetic forgiveness trait... I'm looking for forgiveness itself... in all its physical reality. But materialists have NO answers when it comes to even an elementary physical explanation of human experience... but we are the ones accused of being naive. JM